foodchain

Yes, but why do we still have reptiles, or crocodiles, or any form of life really. if an organisms resides in a population with a certain genome and phenome and all the other -omes it should change on a gradient really quite smoothly in relation to the probability distribution or diffusion right? Such as in X time regardless a crocodile will have X genetic difference or phenotypes or what not right? It would seem as if the eyeball itself should eventually be changed by such. I would think the only thing that fixes a giving trait in some population reproducing with variance would be natural selection, such as if you happen to live in the ocean. so if the environment ultimately interacts with any system coupled to it, in this case a organism, how would you quantify that which would predict say why any particular species stays a species so long while others go extinct and or change?

I have no idea what an atoms geometry is at any giving moment. Is it static, I think the only way we could know would be to observe it, which I think we have with gold or something, not sure btw on that. Second its stated that certain entities in the natural world, like the electron or whatever, or whatever it is that’s observed to constitute an atom can exist in superposition, it also states that measurement of such can only be as good as the uncertainty principal will allow, so if we make a measurement on something quantum for instance I am to believe that best I can ever hope to do in regards to exactness is up to the uncertainty principal. Yet this item that is being measured can exist in a superposition of states, so that would mean that I can only discern what state I am observing it in up to the uncertainty principal in detail? So that’s why I wondered if it was superposition that is causing the uncertainty principal to exist, and as such is constant with anything quantum. Thanks for the article fredrik, I will read it sometime.

Could the uncertainty of a hydrogen atom be directly related to its superposition? Such as a measurement performed at any giving time would reveal data with of course a limitation being the uncertainty principal, so would that in a sort equal to superposition of the hydrogen atom being a constant?

Overpopulation has many negative consequences. I mean for every person alive to be rather basic on the issue requires then a certain overhead to be met just to survive at least in regards to the environment. In this case for the most part lots of the worlds population does use say hydrocarbons or fossil fuels really. I mean to subtract out that part of modern infrastructure would just about extinguish such from existence. This requirement not only persists in time it becomes to require more and more. So eventually I think on large enough of a scale you could say its decline would not only become a limiting agent to growth in various ways it would be deadly really. To add to this the environmental impact will continue to soar along with more and more of us. Enough to cause extinction and even change to the earth overall geologically such with the atmosphere and oceans. So our behavior as it would is directly impacting pretty much all the spheres on the earth it can, and this will only continue to grow. Adding to this you have the reality that this impact is not positive in a conservative equilibrium type sense. Now this might not even be possible as to make fully efficient or to make human action 100% “green”. The flipside of this is that any real application of ecological understanding is hardly practiced at all, so our actions currently could be say close to 100% anti-green really. I mean to make so important for modern survival as we understand it a limited and damaging resource such as oil has a great chance of producing negative results I think on the earth. I would think global instability over the issue could lead to dire consequences, this coupled with the reality of its environmental impact now and to come should make getting away from oil a prime concern, more so if we do couple that with an ever growing human populous. I would speculate though that continued production of such a lifestyle to the bloody end of oil for what its worth my be the only way to kick such habits though.

I have no idea about the origin of nitrogenase really;) I just know it exists in some microbes and works with the microbes metabolism, being the reaction involves ATP and has by products not to mention being an enzyme or pathway.

What I wonder is how much of a barrier to observation QM applies also at the macroscopic realm. I mean when you say detect for dark matter you have certain intrinsic barriers to viewing right? As say you are probably using some instrument compiled from the periodic table in some form or another. If dark matter could also be a particle-wave deal maybe its just to different to interfere with other quantum stuff. I mean with light or ordinary matter you get at least ordinary behavior, save for decay and things like that. why would dark matter have to have anything in common with our material universe? I mean can this be demonstrated somehow using QM or is it an unscientific question? I would think the lack to have quantum interference occur would prove something not to exist? In that no measurement can occur or observation period on it. So to me entanglement occurring seems odd, even if its directly tied in some way to measurement or observation, this is one of the questions that sparked my interest in decoherence because I think it can actually work with entanglement a bit.

See this is what I don’t understand. Its not as if its something factually concrete that is being used for any particular system of thought. I mean if you look at points of the modern conservative parties in the U.S you find in conjunction with environmentalism as applied scientifically to be somewhat at odds, which I think really is somewhat of a weak paradox. Now i know that environmental reality is based on facts that deal with a great deal of things, some of it including at large ecology which applies evolution. So I think that angle of environmentalism combined with typically cultural thoughts that surround it such as deep ecology offends people with differences. So government wise I think the best fit decision is one that tries to stick to just science alone. With that said I think you could easily prove how a label to denote a green product compounded with today’s environmental problems would be easy from a science point of view if it stayed as science. Race issues in America are the worst I would think in regards to how much of a issue they become. I think it would be paramount really to keep environmental issues from sliding to such a point. So really again that’s why I think trying to keep such a product as having the only impact of informing consumer behavior about how green the product is really could not be so bad. I mean what could be a valid argument against such? That could be proved to deal with other then pure self inflicted moral obligation plus overall desire to have no change.

When you say politically neutral what do you mean by the way? If it is retrospect to modern political parties well the EPA was founded by a republican president. So I would think really its more or less a issue that has been pressed into a political corner really, but does not have to be. I think really by trying to harness the label and or sticker to be economically neutral that it would have no real political gravity, or at least it should not in the face of known and large scale environmental hazards to human health. I think if a company could broadcast that its fish food products would be 100% mercury free they probably would, but in reality I don’t think any company that produces fish can, not in any real world scale surely. With that said the EPA lawful requirement is to preserve human health factors associated with the environment, such as air quality. I do not think this issue would really have to bring up any serious political issues to pass as something mainly bent to support consumer awareness, and again I think balancing this with industry would be more important to its success then trying to drown it in partisan politics. With that I agree with your idea of making it optional save it might take bulk in time before any real impact occurs, or the label itself may fall under the radar of consumer behavior if its in small quantities for a short period of time. Tax break incentives I think like with many products is a possible way at first maybe to compensate for production costs associated with such, maybe like two years, along with making the placement of the label liberal and choice to even use it.

I don’t see why not, but the idea would probably go over better if the company had rights on how the label was produced on the product. Not so much what the label would look like just where it goes, such like with other labels a product might have such as if it is a food sponsored by the AHA. I think some companies or at least products would pick up on it to sell the green angle of capitalism. Such a framework I think it would also not only make information more available to the public but in many forms, such as what is the average cost to eat green locally, or what products are really selling and why. simply put if you could make a trusted system then I think all it could do is help aid a consumer if they understood how the label system works. I would only think at most say four or five classifications, or again a percentage possibly. The big idea I think here is empowering green markets. While government interference may look bad, I do not see how a label could be so wrong, we label for safety anyways on products, so from just that facet I could see how such a label could be acceptable.

You have in general for metabolism two forms, one is catabolism which breaks down molecules and the other is anabolism which builds them up. So bacteria have evolved to do this from such a standpoint which reflects in the overall metabolism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogenase

Motion is relative to reference frames with the speed of light being c in all cases save for BECS? So any two observers of say a lighting strike observe such relative to the from of reference the occupy at the time in respects to the speed of light remaining constant. Is this an okay way of putting it?

Not that I know of, and in any way they do such as making sure something with a certain chemical has some small print somewhere in the packaging chain is hardly worth even talking about for some great overall impact. What I am basically thinking is that a company could make a product, and if it meet certain conditions it would have a sticker which would relate a percentage of why its green. This could include packaging, production processes, fuel types used, so on and so fourth. For each category a potential green product could then have an overall rating, vs. just buying something in a store that states it is a green product and or uses such technology. I think with a sticker only basis you still leave the market open to the private sector but, by far but just more or less give a possible aid for consumer behavior that may be looking for alternative to say products that have no environmental concern built into them from a lifecycle point of view. the company would basically validate why the product is green according to some temporal guidelines, which again would relate to if it uses environmental friendly practices and or procedures, and to what extent in the overall process. this would then ascertain a sticker with the percentage marker, or a class rating scheme I think could even work. such as a p class raring means packaging is fully biodegradable and made from recycled products using other then fossil fuel, or so on. I also dont see why this would be to different from how the USDA operates in America.

I think the EPA should be charged with labeling products that are “green” in nature vs. ones that just sell on such a title. I would even go as far as to think it would only help consumer habits if say some green product for sale had a sticker on it. This would imply certain standards to the definition that I think could be handled by scientists. I also do not think it would be to difficult to coordinate also.

Drilling for oil=bad regardless. Who wants to give money to something that evil? I don’t want to become the absolutist here but really fossil fuel is only a doomed future in every way. Any drilling will only increase this burdens eventual impact if not outright devastating halt to humanity. Just look at what is going on now, gas price in America would be mortally lethal in large to the populous in regards to spending money on something other then fossil fuel, it also draws heavy negativity in the global community from being such a precious commodity, this is a historical fact I would posit, but I do know that you can find endless historical aspects of fossil fuel use implanted in warfare, and with polluting water or possibly killing off sea life I am sure others will become more paramount on such a list. Any president that does not support large scale change not only to “green” standards for technology but simply to get away from fossil fuel dependence is a loon.

There is no real consensus that I know of. You have a small list of competing ideas about how it started. I think it boils down to trying to reduce say evolution to microorganism level and then looking for clues there, such as does a thermophile have the most basic metabolism to support life, or the other side of the coin tries to figure out how life could be supported from the chemistry level looking up, and combined with this you have various experiments, such as what lead to protobionts. Its just what something like that video lacks or any current documentary on the issue is really the complexity involved. A modern metabolic pathway in say some minor bacteria can be mind boggling really, simple put it relates to behavior from a cell for instance. So just in terms of trying to reduce that chemistry to something primordial is really a difficult task i would imagine. I mean just cutting out Anaerobic respiration by itself wont help for instance. Then trying to build something like a cell from a chemistry viewpoint? Its not going to happen tommorow:D Its not impossible but at the point we could recreate how life evolved on earth to the point of being able to make a living cell would imply a huge technological advantage to where we currently sit technology wise. Just our understanding of nanotechnology alone would have to be rather astounding compared to its current place. So in short I don’t think anyone could answer your question really past a hypothesis.

After software/hardware tech manuals I can only really read books about animals or plants anymore, but I do know of one good link in which has plenty of interesting things to read about. http://www.esajournals.org/perlserv/?request=index-html&ct=1

Right, so its pretty much why a penguin looks the way that it does vs. being more purely avian. this is also why such a phenotype ultimately comes to being so prevalent in the population including heredity like genes. So if you have a particular set of factors weighing in as selection variables they will have an impact, much like the introduction of say technology as something that could be used by say humans. The use of tools by in large has allowed us to basically move to where we are at, though as evidenced by say the cold war if you will its not free from peril, or the human race collectively that is.

See that is a great way of putting it that you have dice to roll. I don’t see how you can though put in the separation, such as when the question of the classical emerging from the quantum, such to me seems a constant and temporal act that never ceases.

Its not that we don’t have any idea, its just a rather complex question;) With that being said if you look at organic synthesis for instance you might start to find various reaction mechanisms that are many step and have various conditions that need to be met such as ph and of course time or thermal conditions. so in reality the chain of reaction that may have lead to life originally might not just be one continuous mechanism but say for instance that you had to have three different mechanisms, each one bearing its own complexity, to add to this what if the whole deal of reactions for just one part takes say 50 years to complete! looking at organic functional groups I do not find this hard to imagine. I don’t know of many reaction mechanisms in the real world that are over say 1000 steps. I don’t know if its fair to label something like that a reaction mechanism but hey I don’t know all the words to use in such a situation. Plus its probably not all just chemistry. what if it involved a proto virus like entity coming into contact with say protobionts in some kind of a nutrient rich patch. again the question is vastly complex and blurs the line of what can be called life being virus entities have been created from scratch. Not to be to rude on the question but you might even find yourself having to do quantum engineering type equations and stuff or nanotechnology. I mean what happens if you have a few amino acid chain reaction going on and you add in an iron ion containing group, its not something that’s going to be solved by tomorrow at any rate. I think a good place to study is metabolism that can retain some sort of heredity, maybe with thermophiles.

well what’s wrong with understanding reality? i mean do you ever like to eat food, or something that was once living, do you look like it as taking joy in something’s death or just the food part if you do by chance? the way i look at it at least evolution or the understanding of it allow for i guess the closest you can come to truth in life. i mean what’s the point of raising a bunch of people to believe in other then science. in that world what would global warming be? an act of the supernatural? what would anything be? at least with such understanding we might not kill ourselves off, or better yet design ways to escape from a sun that will explode someday if we don’t get hit by a comet in the meantime. believing something else controls it sort of reminds me of schizophrenia really, along with talking to a god honestly...

I think you would have to change everything else also, not just the people.

I will go from what I know. CO2 is certified for producing a green house effect, this is empirical, observed and understood logically to be a reality. As far as I know science cannot link the growth of CO2 to any source on earth except for people. in fact the growth spurt seems to coincide a grow alongside the industrial revolution as evidence from natural logs of climate variability and composition. Tree use is different though then say for ice cores, I think the reason why would be simple, one of them is a living complex organism, as such tree data is still useful even if not understood as well as say ice cores. Also modern studies point to ocean saturation with co2 currently going on. also some think or even have data to support the idea that the ability for oceans to sink co2 is failing, I wonder if this will mean change. Solar data while very complex, more so in a historical tone including other things such as emergence of anything phyta to earth science to it being a heavily interdisciplinary endeavor overall. with that being said current understanding places modern CO2 count higher then it has been for many hundreds of thousands of years if you can imagine such time. Not to go into the idea that more of a green house gas concentration will mean more of a green house effect or more quanta if you want just that the sun seems to lack any direct measurable source for the current heating, and again no connection to all the CO2, which will give us more sun even if not how we would like it. Also even if you don’t fully want to follow the idea that higher concentrations of a green house gas would cause more of a greenhouse effect the reality of global climate change is already being understood in terms of impact by say fields like ecology as it would pertain to issues of biodiversity or populations. Such papers and talks on such are easy to find on the net really. If our current understanding of global climate change was some absolute science I think debate on the issue would still exist. Global warming has more gravity to it in regards to human attention. I mean society on a global scale is not reacting like they do over global warming to say finding some new specie of head lice.

Well of course it traces to math I scarcely understand, but if I do understand it enough pointer states are what survive interference, or are the products of such. In a paper I am reading on the application of such to a Bloch sphere takes on properties associated or accordingly to a Bloch sphere, this I think comes about via again system, apparatus and environment. I am not sure as to if pointer states exist purely only any of the three or all three. the environment ultimately though is able to act back onto the system though, such as I think a real world example of this would be like asking if any particular atom is a closed or isolated system. Apparatus is measurement, and the environment I guess is a umbrella term really for a collection of systems and apparatus, so again I am not sure exactly as to what is the pointer state save that which persists through interference. This is why I wonder if that while interference goes along, what all can that lead to, being again if we were to change some small fundamental variable in the universe, such as if all particles had mass, what would that mean? Also again if classicality emerged from the quantum, then could gravity take on a large scale form as being maybe apparatus at a cosmic level, not so much apparatus in the form of someone’s pocket laser?

Here is a speculation on gravity from a QM perspective to have destroyed by members of SFN. Could pointer states come to look like gravity? Lets say you have a ball, and you want to roll it uphill, well obviously some energy has to be exerted. Now if you have I guess an evolution of pointer states going from the system, apparatus, environment angle, could at some point say through some form of that like a conservation law of some kind, say momentum for instance that a wave function experiences a field like effect of some kind? Such as particle y has probability to be somewhere that classically it should not be, could simply a conservation law tie into that as to why a particle just does not go everywhere at once really? In another sense would it be possible to have gravity become some emergent property of quantum pointer states operating in any kind of again system, apparatus, environment sense in which the gravity arrives as a class of emergent behavior again or additive structure to a quantum system doing whatever it does? I mean in an earlier thread I made about dark matter or energy the stuff seems rather odd. Such as maybe an example of such that branched into serious difference from say the reality of how fermions behave or whatever they do, and that maybe some of the fundamental forces do not act on them in any kind of a field effect or whatever, or that maybe even conservation laws do not seem to apply if possible to speculate. So that maybe some of what we observe. I mean is the makeup of a photon that gives it such properties like being able to propagate at the speed of light right, while other material aspects of the universe cannot. Also with string theory you had the idea of many possible universe which could be completely different. So again, could say pointer states of quantum systems lead to any emergent or classical behavior, such as gravity. If so could it be possible to think that gravity is some kind of a field effect that modifies say superposition in such a system.

Evolution is rather simple. variation, reproduction, selection. Its understanding this that helps. A common sense example of this would be that aquatic environments differ from terrestrial ones, or how birds can fly. So in evolution you can say that multicellular life was selected for, and is selected for. I mean life may not be able to evolve in on a planet like Jupiter, this does not mean life cant ever interact with it right, so selection is temporal. I mean how could 99% of life in its form that was at one point or not selected for become selected against and subsequently go extinct? So I guess my answer is while humans may be a pinnacle of evolution now, its still just the same reality that is at play, such as say selection in the form of global warming and whatever impact that brings. So this is why biodiversity in general is good for life, if a comet of some size struck the earth maybe only a minor percent of life in some form would be able to live on, vs. humans as a specie which I wager would go extinct.